This rendition sounds more Floyd than ever for this song. Interesting.

The song is a rendition of the early 19th century Irish antiwar song "Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye" that was later revised in the USA as "When Johnny Comes Marching Home." This version was extremely popular during the Civil War.

The song you mention is one of a number of variations using the same melody.

Great rendition sifted BTW.

You know...votes are nice...but comments like yours really make it all very worthwhile. At least for me. Thank you. I am very glad you liked it.

If I may, I wonder if you would like this rendition, http://videosift.com/video/A-SONG-FOR-YOU-Leon-Russell-Friends-1971? If you like it I would like to know if you don't mind.

And please, not for vote.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
never been a huge modern blues fan, but am very grateful this video got to me.

Beautiful rendition.

It must be nice living in a world without shades of gray.

You keep wanting to paint me as someone who condones their religious/extremist views. The point I've been trying to make, and that you keep wanting to avoid, is that not all of them are true believers - and that those who join the Taliban for religious reasons are not the same as those who join for nationalist reasons. Observe the same trend in the American army - some do it for personal reasons, some do it for America, and some do it for Christ. Is it so hard to believe the bad guys forces might have the same factions?

Official protocol eh? Rendition, waterboarding etc. etc. is all official protocol. Does this condemn all members of the armed forces? Or just the ranking members who make policy? Hmmm...

Praising God condemns them all? Visit any American base abroad and count how many go to church or pray regularly. Hmmmm....

Definition of the Taliban eh? Thats a good idea. From Wikipedia:

The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[5] (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students") is a Wahhabi Islamist political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown in late 2001. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)

I see the Islamist political movement...and then I see insurgency. I have no doubts the Islamic extremists run the show. I also have no doubts the insurgency (Nationalist) aspect is a big draw in recruiting. Much like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban recruits based on resentment and anger towards imperial powers. You know this, I'm sure.

There's no such thing as a moderate Taliban member? Says who? You'll have to provide more than your word on that one. I'll rely on practicality and realism.

I had no intention of lumping you in with the Fox News assholes. I was meaning to display the various political factions within any given movement - devout doesn't always mean extremist. Not every American pastor or Priest is a Phelps supporter at heart - and not every Afghan insurgent is a wahhabist at heart. You see that, don't you?

I'm guessing many of them signed up to fight the Imperial invaders, not just to woman-beat and Jew-hate. If that were the case, you wouldn't see the informants and intelligence sources from within Taliban-held areas that Americans and other NATO forces rely on for intel, would you?

I despise extremist religious/political philosophy as much as you do. But, I also understand that I would sign up with the nearest big group of assholes in my part of the world if it meant we could better fight off foreign invaders.

>> ^LostTurntable:

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.
Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.
They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.
And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.
I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.

>> ^Throbbin:
Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

Horkeimer always sounded like a demented pirate to me. And that computerized rendition of Debussy hurts my ears.

But upvote for astronomy goodness!

Christ, some people here....suck. It's a silly song, and I bet Men Without Hats would be the first to admit that. How serious can one get about a song with lyrics encouraging you to act like an imbecile? Yet some obviously think this rendition is blasphemous. And then we have people here like westy who criticize a touching personal video just because the camera was a little shaky.

People - They're the worst.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
Yeah, I know right? Changing lyrics slightly equals SONG IMPLOSION!!!

Syo Syo rendition of the Self Link song.

@Krupo I guess I'm more worried about the claims Tyrsis is making than the "cops doing stuff bothers people having cocktails" argument.

I mean if it were me, I'd be pissed about having a loud and rambunctious group of people breaking out in spontaneous rendition of O Canada while I was enjoying a cocktail...

Mild correction: not quite "acoustic". Guitars have dials.

Nice rendition though.

You didn't read my post and you're setting me up as a straw man to argue against.

Obama's language in his executive orders that this is all about talk about respecting "international obligations, domestic laws, and humane treatment". So, I gather that means the only way rendition/abduction/arrest is going to be legit is if there's no reasonable government in place to do an extradition from like say a dude in Somalia plotting to blow up the French Club's trip to Paris. The language also specifies that it would be temporary confinement before due process and never to someplace where they could be tortured. The whole thing is ripe for nasty abuse but as I understand it they're trying to set up a legal framework that does not violate tenants of our society... it is a huge fucking legal mess but I don't see evidence that it's trying to do the stuff you're saying.
>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^alizarin:
Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :
Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.
Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info
Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.

Utterly disgusting. Secret abductions? How does that not violate some tenant of our society? Due, fucking, process. How about some Equality Before the Law? Treat terrorists for what they are, criminals.

>> ^alizarin:

Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :
Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.
Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info
Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.


Utterly disgusting. Secret abductions? How does that not violate some tenant of our society? Due, fucking, process. How about some Equality Before the Law? Treat terrorists for what they are, criminals.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^rougy:
There is little correlation between what Obama says and what Obama does.

It's not even that, so much as what Candidate Obama said pre-2008 vs. what President Obama says now.
That's what's grating on me at this point. I expected him to be merely center-left in policy, but I figured he'd at least make an eloquent case for progressive ideals on a regular basis.
Instead, he seems to want to avoid any and all political or ideological confrontation.
We don't need unity, we need for the left to beat the right so thoroughly they can't win an election for dog-catcher until they tilt way back to the left themselves.


You mean campaign promises, and actually keeping them?

Huh, seems like we've been down that road. The big ones for me are Extraordinary Rendition, and Habeus Corpus. Demoralized Idealist. Same shit, different day. The people need to educate themselves about what really matters, false wars, bailouts, Military Industrial Complex, Militarization of the Police, Prohibition, Equal Rights for all types of sexuality, and lastly this idea that Transparency is good in speeches but in practice it's a dangerous thing.

Bah. I look down there and see two wankers yappin' about being liberal without knowing the first thing about Liberalism. I wonder how they feel about extraordinary renditions. I hear democrats like those. I mean since we're all making broad stroked statements.

Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :

* Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.

* Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info

Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.